October 25, 2015 § Leave a comment

I wouldn’t pretend to be an expert on this topic, but so far as I can tell, alpha has no meaning outside of women’s sexual preferences.  Alpha is simply the sum of the qualities that most women find sexually attractive, not a mystical force running throughout the social universe that we should attempt to tap into like Luke Skywalker.

It’s an ideal that belongs to women, not to men.  It doesn’t begin or end with us, but with women’s biologically rooted sexual preferences.  Am I wrong on this count?  If so, what male trait or characteristic would make one both alpha and simultaneously unattractive to women?  If we can’t think of one, then I think this debate is settled.

Given women’s typical insecurities, lack of imagination, and susceptibility to group-think, as well as the extreme and tyrannical social power they enjoy in their role as the sexual, social, and moral gatekeepers, this idealized and rigid conception of alpha male that they impose tends to be as generic and narrowly focused as it is unattainable for the majority of real world men.  So, while I wouldn’t criticize a guy for attempting to achieve this ideal in his personal life in order to get laid or land the best possible mate for an LTR, I would have to ask what it means if this guy can’t make the distinction between his own value system and the one he has adopted for women’s benefit.

If he has no value system that is legitimately his own, then his entire identity has been imposed on him by women’s moronic, daddy-issues riven sexual fantasies.  I can’t think of anything more depressing.

I mean, ok, I suppose it’s slightly less depressing than the perpetually aggrieved and hopeless incel conspiracy theorist, but only because the alpha is getting laid and for no other reason.  In theory, a soulless automaton who is getting pussy is faring better than the soulless automaton who gets no pussy. But that’s really all I can say for this type of guy, that he’s really just like the incel in that his entire existence is predicated on his relative acceptability to women.  So… he’s basically just an incel who gets laid a lot.  It’s a horseshoe theory for the SMP.

Let’s get real about it: There isn’t much sense in putting a premium on women’s preferences since the ugly truth is that they are generally pretty unimaginative, clueless, venal, petty, small-minded, and self-centered.  They don’t do what they do because they are Machiavellian master manipulators, but because they don’t know any better and therefore have a questionable ethical compass.  Most of the time they aren’t lying to you, but to themselves while they reason, not rationally, but emotionally.  They’re not actually attracted to any real quality or value that men might have, since they’re incapable of recognizing these qualities and discerning their value anyway; what they are attracted to sexually is the social status that such qualities might confer on to a potential mate, to the power, prestige, fame, or infamy it might earn him in a wider society.

Whatever others seem to value, she will value, not because she is conscious of how she makes this determination, but because she rationalizes the shit out of it.  A man’s attractiveness to women depends as much on what the society values as it does anything else, since women are really only ever responding to social proof, or the appearance of quality, rather than quality itself.  This is why she’ll find you attractive simply because other women appear to find you attractive.  She doesn’t care about actual quality, but what others believe to be quality and this is why we can say that behind every great man was a woman, but also can say that behind every genocidal madman and brutal sociopathic despot there was a woman too – usually an enthusiastic harem of them.

It’s women’s fundamental pettiness and inability to evolve beyond the psychology of a catty 14 year old social climber in junior high that compels them to reward men at the top of whatever social pile with sexual attention or affection, not their ability to discern valuable from valueless.  The most highly decorated SS officer drops panties just as surely as Gandhi does.  Women have been socially excluding heroes, moral paragons, and geniuses since the beginning because they can’t tell the difference and, in truth, don’t care one way or the other.  What they care about is riding some guy’s coattails and co-opting the respect or fame he earns in a wider society in the same way that women co-opt and claim for themselves everything men build after the heavy lifting is done.

Do they do this consciously?  Of course not.  It’s all just rationalized.  We should observe what they say, rather than what they do, not because women are liars, but because women obscure their own motivations from themselves. They can’t lie about the truth if they never knew the truth to begin with.

The truth is that they’re attracted to power and social status is power.  Power is amoral and may be legitimate or illegitimate, earned or unearned.  It makes no difference to women.  War criminal Henry Kissinger was a tubby troll and no doubt offered a woman nothing but his pasty belly flab to look at while she was blowing him, but blow him she did, and quite enthusiastically, even as he dumped Agent Orange all over women and children in Vietnam in order to prevent the Vietnamese from achieving independence from Western imperialism.  Agent Orange, of course, is the gift that keeps on giving, since it damages DNA and leads to generations of birth defects. To this day, the Vietnamese government is still administering orphanages filled with Agent Orange babies.  Here are a few:

How much pussy did this earn Kissinger, one wonders?  Think about this the next time you’re working up the courage to sarge and consider that the girl who just turned you down would probably gobble up Kissinger’s nut without him even having to buy her a drink, and not because she didn’t know he was a war criminal, but because he was a war criminal.  It’s safe to say that if there is a burden of performance, Kissinger alpha’d the fuck up and shouldered it with ease.


Do you think Gloria Steinem swallowed?  Come to think of it, I’m really curious as to how well somebody like Kissinger could have done with the morally righteous, self-important, and ostensibly conscientious young women of the New Left who were protesting him on campuses.   Had he bothered, my hunch is that his notch count would have escalated like the body count in his bogus and criminal war.  Had he accosted Bernardine Dohrn or Ulrike Meinhoff and whipped out his stubby member and said “top me off, you worthless cooz, then go make me a sandwich,” they probably would have dropped their protest signs and jumped at the chance to slobber on it while less powerful and therefore sexually invisible working class men died overseas for Dupont’s profits.  “Power is an aphrodisiac,” as Kissinger explained, and we all know that desire can’t be negotiated.  Do we think killing millions for imperialism will make the vaginas of our morally superior women dry up?  Think again.

Imagine the archetypal damsel in distress who the black knight and the white knight fight over.  Some of us may identify the white knight as the black, some of us the may identify the black knight as the white, but for the damsel, it’s the guy who wins who is always the white knight.  The war bride doesn’t care which one wins because she is attracted to power itself, to winning itself, not the qualities which made one knight white and another black.  It’s not even clear if she’s capable of discerning those qualities or that she would bother to try even if she were.  Desire cannot be negotiated.

You’re not going to be the “good man” and be rewarded for it sexually, emotionally, or in any other way by women. If you cured cancer with your hard fought research and some HB9 appeared on the scene and showered you with attention, you can be certain that the reason she’s doing so is because you’re famous, visible, the center of attention, and more powerful than your competitors in your field, and certainly more powerful than the janitors, cashiers, and unemployed neckbeards of the world who she barely notices anyway.  She doesn’t care about you so much as she cares about how being with you makes her look to others.  It isn’t the actual value of your research, the cancer patients you cured, or the unique and exceptional qualities that you posses which generate the tingles, because she’d be just as happy to give it up if you’d instead developed an ultra efficient means of committing mass murder and was celebrated publicly as a genius or hero for it.  It makes no difference to her for the same reason that most of us will never get groupies sending us love letters like Ted Bundy and Richard Ramirez.

They’re sexually attracted to power,  which is the same as saying they are repelled sexually by weakness, and the exercise of power is often at odds with the basic tenets of a civilized, rational, and decent society.  We’re told over and over again that toxic masculinity begins with this intrinsically male desire for dominance, but in truth, how many of us would care about power if we didn’t face the real prospect of powerlessness?  And what is the guy who is beat out in the competition if not excluded, invisible, and therefore powerless?  It’s women who are obsessed with power, and it’s this obsession which keeps us clawing each other’s eyes out, destroying, and oppressing one another.  That’s the real reason men who understand this dynamic on whatever level get irritated when women appear in a male space.  It’s because they recognize that the appearance of women will eventually set men against one another just as surely as Anita Sarkeesian’s attention whoring and finger-pointing set men in gaming against one another.

So that’s our predicament in a nutshell: We are pulled in one direction by the dictates of conscience and civility on the one hand and by women’s absurd hunter gatherer libidos which crave male power on the other.  That’s the double bind which created both red and blue pill and it’s the whole reason anybody was confused about this in the first place.  The blue pill was a lie but we were all lied to for pretty good reasons.  Had contraception, consumer society’s affluence, and the sexual revolution not pulled the rug out from underneath us, we’d still be playing hero in wars or at jobs which destroy our health while believing ourselves to be worthy of our morally superior women who gave our lives meaning precisely because they inspired the best in us.  It’s the holy lie which made our civilization possible.

I don’t know about you, but I’m not too impressed with women’s values.  I’m certainly not going to judge myself according to the value system of people who are biologically incapable of recognizing kindness or selflessness as anything other than a vagina-repellent form of weakness.  So I’m not going to judge any other guy by the alpha/beta/omega standard.  I don’t agree that the proverbial neckbeard in his mother’s basement who has retreated into porn and video games is defective or worthless, not when I think of all the brilliant, creative, heroic, and awesome guys I’ve known who were uniformly ignored, used, resented, and treated like garbage by our lovely and morally superior women.  And I disagree that his deluded but hopeful beta workhorse counterpart who slaves away for a woman he mistakenly believes loves him the way he loves her is defective or worthless.  I know that his self sacrifice is also his bravery, his own misguided attempt to be alpha.  It’s the result of him having cultivated the best within himself and given it over to somebody or something that he mistakenly believed was worthy of it because he was lied to his entire life and fed a steady diet of ready-made excuses and bullshit.  I don’t look down on him at all because I recognize that these are the guys who built all this and we owe everything to them.

I don’t look at these guys and exclude them from the “real men” box.  We’re all real men.  There were never any other kind of men.

What women value has nothing to do with my own values so I see no sense in projecting whatever insecurities I have on to other men who are unable or unwilling to play a game whose rules men don’t typically even understand in the first place.  “Alpha,” to the degree any of us are capable of it, should be regarded as an artificial role we play for women’s benefit, no different than putting on a goofy uniform for your retail job.  It’s a tacky joke, not a mystical state of social zen. It’s just another burden of performance, another task heaped upon the back of the draft horse, not a holy grail or marker of one’s right to respect or a meaningful social existence.  I don’t mind being a little minstrel who dances for a woman’s entertainment in exchange for sex – in that respect it’s like any poorly paid customer service job – but do we at least get a break every once in awhile?  Ever?  Are we at least allowed to admit to ourselves that the job is bullshit and usually not worth the effort?  Can we at least not be forced to play make believe about it?

When I look at myself, I don’t dislike what I see. I don’t believe that changing in a way that would make myself more attractive to women would actually be an improvement if this is what women are attracted to.  It would merely be a means to an end.  Why should it be anything more than that?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading alpha at .


%d bloggers like this: